Monday, August 21st 2017

AMD Issues Official Statement on RX Vega 64 Pricing Woes

Update: Related to this story, feast your eyes on Newegg's deal of the day, with a reference, standard Sapphire RX Vega 64 for $689.99 with two "free" games. I don't think I've ever seen such a conturbated launch as this. Also, considering the scope and content of the article, I will be updating the tag for this piece as an Editorial.

There has been somewhat of an uproar in recent times regarding AMD's lack of clarity on pricing of their newly-launched Vega 64. While AMD themselves told reviewers and consumers that their RX Vega graphics cards would be available for $399 (Vega 56) and $499 (Vega 64), recent events have, at the very least, cast some doubts on Vega's supposedly clean-cut pricing. Some popular reviewers and YouTubers have even gone so far as to say they won't be accepting any more samples from AMD due to a perceived slight at the erroneous information provided by the company; when someone reviews and analyses a product based on a fixed price-point advanced by a company, and then that pricing seems to have turned out nothing more than smoke and mirrors... People's work is put out the window.

Now, AMD has come out to put rumors of false Vega pricing announcements to rest. Except the skeptic in me remains, well... skeptic. Here's what AMD has said: "Radeon RX Vega 64 demand continues to exceed expectations. AMD is working closely with its partners to address this demand. Our initial launch quantities included standalone Radeon RX Vega 64 at SEP of $499, Radeon RX Vega 64 Black Packs at SEP of $599, and Radeon RX Vega 64 Aqua Packs at SEP of $699. We are working with our partners to restock all SKUs of Radeon RX Vega 64 including the standalone cards and Gamer Packs over the next few weeks, and you should expect quantities of Vega to start arriving in the coming days."
Do you agree with me when I say that AMD isn't committing to a base $499 pricing for RX Vega 64? Expressions like "limited launch quantities included standalone Radeon RX Vega 64 at SEP of $499" don't really clear the air as to when (if) such pricing will be restocked. At best, AMD seems to only be saying that they'll restock some token offerings for their RX Vega graphics cards, if nothing else, simply looking to curb doubts on RX Vega's MSRP. Yes, it does start at $499 - but there is no true availability at that pricing, because AMD only restocks limited quantities at that pricing through (apparently) rebates and other offerings to retailers. And AMD left a crystal clear sentence of "we'll be restocking Vega SKUs at the announced $499 pricing" conspicuously absent.

The issue is that multiple retailers have come out, one way or another, to say that AMD have, in fact, issued changes to the RX Vega 64's retail pricing. OC UK's Andrew Gibson (Gibbo), the source we quoted in our first story that put forward some doubts on AMD's real RX Vega pricing intentions, gave KitGuru some clarifications on his initial claims on OC UK's forums: "Launch price was $499 with NO games for the Black card, as outlined to us by AMD as a launch only price. AMD allowed us to sell a set amount at this price, which was several hundred, clearly not enough as they were sold out in approximately 15 minutes. After this the regular price was $599 with FREE games for both the black and silver cards, $699 for the aqua card plus taxes." Another retailer, this time Norwegian komplett.no, also said that AMD's RX Vega 64 stock to be sold at MSRP $499 was limited to 275, as the company was "allowed to sell at a favorable price at launch. The RX Vega 64 version we had for sale was in a limited edition of this price and will unfortunately not be put up for sale again."

OcUK's Andrew Gibson went on to say that AMD's launch price of £449 "(...) is not possible, $499 is below what they cost us direct from the board partners by a large chunk of cash, AMD rebated us to hit $499 on a set amount of units. As such $599 is now the minimum." The retailer representative also went on to say that "Unfortunately AMD did not make the launch pricing plan clear at all to the press or the consumer, which has caused a lot of confusion, if we could sell cards at £449 and make money, they'd be at that price. If that was the case we probably would have sold around 5,000 units now at OcUK, whereas the reality is we've sold a little over 1000."

Over at Gamers Nexus, Steve Burke has voiced what sources inside the retailer family have been quietly putting out: that AMD did allow retailers to sell limited quantities of the RX Vega 64 SKU at $499 through time and quantity-limited rebates so as to allow retailers to sell part of their Vega 64 cards at AMD's announced pricing. AMD's Radeon Packs have apparently seen the highest alocation of Vega graphics cards on AMD's part, because this allows the company to recoup their losses at selling RX Vega 64 - and soon, RX Vega 56 - at their announced MSRP. It seems that AMD's BOM for their monolithic, 484 mm² dies and exotic HBM2 memory (as well as R&D expenses, naturally) have increased RX Vega's manufacturing cost to the point where (sources are claiming; take this with a grain of salt) AMD loses more than $100 on each RX Vega consumer card sold. Perhaps it's only a coincidence that Vega's retailer pricing increase covers both AMD's estimated manufacturing costs, as well as retailer's margins. Perhaps not. But there has been enough smoke dotting the aftermath of Vega's rise that it's likely there is fire.
Sources: IO Tech, via Videocardz, JayzTeoCents @ Twitter via Reddit user wickedplayer494, KitGuru, Tek.No, Gamers Nexus
Add your own comment

153 Comments on AMD Issues Official Statement on RX Vega 64 Pricing Woes

#76
bug
Vya DomusJacked up prices are jacked up prices. Whether it is AMD or retailers behind it , I as a user don't care and don't have control over it anyway , I only get to see the final price tag. If it fits my needs I'll buy it , if it doesn't I wont. For something this basic ,yes , it is blown way out of proportion I am not minimizing anything.

Now if you have any expectations beyond that , then yes it might matter to you.
You're not wrong. Except for some it matters who jacks up prices when they want to vote with their wallets. For those, it's important to know who did what.
Afaict, Nvidia stepped into a gray area with their FE cards and media reacted to that. If AMD truly tried a bait and switch here, the media should react again. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted on Reply
#77
Vya Domus
Yeah , AMD , the wolf in sheep's clothing...aka the ones with the least market share. A mighty predator indeed.
Posted on Reply
#78
bug
Vya DomusYeah , AMD , the wolf in sheep's clothing...aka the ones with the least market share. A mighty predator indeed.
I hope you're not saying the lesser player can't and won't play dirty when it suits them.
Posted on Reply
#79
Vya Domus
I'm just saying it is a tad ridiculous to say that when they are probably making close to nothing on these cards with or without the "pricing scam". Just a personal opinion , AMD's own competitors pulled off arguably much more shadier tactics that netted them much more cash.
Posted on Reply
#80
EarthDog
Vya DomusYeah , AMD , the wolf in sheep's clothing...aka the ones with the least market share. A mighty predator indeed.
Lol, not talking outside of this... just giving an example of what is happening and how its being minimzed...

You are saying it is ok/less of an issue because...
1. Prices are inflated above and beyond...so we cant notice it.
2. Because they arent making profits on it? What does that have to do with anything???

Competitors and their shenanigans arent the issue here... we are talking about amd straight up misleading reviewers and the public intentionally for what amounts to better reviews. You dont think reviews and public perception of the card would be different at +$100???
bugI hope you're not saying the lesser player can't and won't play dirty when it suits them.
thats exactly what was said...
Posted on Reply
#81
bug
Vya DomusI'm just saying it is a tad ridiculous to say that when they are probably making close to nothing on these cards with or without the "pricing scam".
I think you missed a few words here. (that = ?)
Vya DomusJust a personal opinion , AMD's own competitors pulled off arguably much more shadier tactics that netted them much more cash.
Charging an arm and a leg when you have no competition is far from "shadier tactics". It's annoying if you're the customer, but it's not shady.
Posted on Reply
#82
Vya Domus
bugCharging an arm and a leg when you have no competition is far from "shadier tactics". It's annoying if you're the customer, but it's not shady.
You are either new around the block , or you choose to ignore all the things the competition did that go beyond just high prices.
EarthDogthats exactly what was said...
Nope , what I said is that it's a ridiculous way of putting it given the situation , not that it doesn't contain a resemblance of truth. Nothing more. And of course it's my personal opinion.
Posted on Reply
#83
bug
Vya DomusYou are either new around the block , or you choose to ignore all the things the competition did that go beyond just high prices.
Do tell, please.
Posted on Reply
#85
DeathtoGnomes
I'd like to sue Newegg over their recent part in all this. In short, one of the sale reps actually blamed AMD for the price gouging.
Posted on Reply
#86
bug
Vya Domusabcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7574976&page=1

www.polygon.com/2016/7/28/12315238/nvidia-gtx-970-lawsuit-settlement

These are just the most popular ones mind you.

I am sure you never heard of them though and you're probably going to tell me they are somehow irrelevant. ;)
They're not irrelevant, but I thought we were discussing Vega and GTX 1070/1080 here.
To sum it up, you don't have a problem with AMD pushing was seems to be a discounted price as MSRP for the initial reviewers, because Intel was fined three years ago and the 970 had an internal limitation nobody noticed was there.
Posted on Reply
#87
Vya Domus
bugThey're not irrelevant, but I thought we were discussing Vega and GTX 1070/1080 here.
To sum it up, you don't have a problem with AMD pushing was seems to be a discounted price as MSRP for the initial reviewers, because Intel was fined three years ago and the 970 had an internal limitation nobody noticed was there.
The problem I have is with people turning a blind eye to other shit that companies do , which is what you're doing right now.

And it was you who asked me to tell you what these other companies have done , and you're saying that's not what we're talking about now ?

Nah mate, we are talking about shady practices and AMD is small fish in that regard compared to Intel/Nvidia. And it's not me , commissions around the world came to that conclusion.

This situation is speculative at best , I can see that AMD screwed up big time and that's about it.

Whether they used shady tactics or not , I'll let respective authorities determine that.

Screw up =/= shady tactic
Posted on Reply
#88
EarthDog
Vya DomusThe problem I have is with people turning a blind eye to other shit that companies do , which is what you're doing right now.

And it was you who asked me to tell you what these other companies have done , and you're saying that's not what we're talking about now ?

Nah mate, we are talking about shady practices and AMD is small fish in that regard compared to Intel/Nvidia. And it's not me , commissions around the world came to that conclusion.

This situation is speculative at best , I can see that AMD screwed up big time and that's about it.

Whether they used shady tactics or not , I'll let respective authorities determine that.

Screw up =/= shady tactic
This isnt about what other companies did. Nvidia got theirs in a 970 thread...but again, this isnt about nvidia or comparing what amd did to what others have done in the past. A straw man argument... not the issue here, the others. Its a deflection tactic...intentional or not.

They screwed up making an expensive card with little margins. They were shady in how they handled pricing with reviewers and the public. Im not sure how you can deny that, honestly.

We dont need to wait for authorities to tell us anything. This isnt something for the authorities in the first place. The action doesnt need to be illegal to be shady. They manipulated results of reviews by not being forthcoming and telling us the launch price was a 'sale'. We/Reviewers passed judgement on the card at the price they gave us. That is shady. Period.
Posted on Reply
#89
Vya Domus
The reviews still hold their relevance. The tests and the performance don't change.

I have trust in people to be capable enough to look up prices on their own and not take for granted every conclusion to every review out there. That's what I always do personally.

I understand that as a reviewer you want absolute consistency on the products that you review but we both know that is never guaranteed and it's not the first or the last time something like this will happen. However , to me it looks like you and others are trying to dramatize this issue to an unnecessary degree.

You're saying AMD tried to manipulate the media coverage , to me it looks like they simply failed to to get their products on the market the way they wanted and until there's more information on this matter , I feel like your claim that they tried to "manipulate" reviewers is outlandish and not based on anything concrete.
Posted on Reply
#90
DeathtoGnomes
Vya DomusThe problem I have is with people turning a blind eye to other shit that companies do , which is what you're doing right now.

And it was you who asked me to tell you what these other companies have done , and you're saying that's not what we're talking about now ?

Nah mate, we are talking about shady practices and AMD is small fish in that regard compared to Intel/Nvidia. And it's not me , commissions around the world came to that conclusion.

This situation is speculative at best , I can see that AMD screwed up big time and that's about it.

Whether they used shady tactics or not , I'll let respective authorities determine that.

Screw up =/= shady tactic
I'm more inclined to think that retailer prices are more of a "fuck you" to AMD knowing there are bigger profits to be made.
Posted on Reply
#91
EarthDog
Vya DomusThe reviews still hold their relevance. The tests and the performance don't change.

I have trust in people to be capable enough to look up prices on their own and not take for granted every conclusion to every review out there. That's what I always do personally.

I understand that as a reviewer you want absolute consistency on the products that you review but we both know that is never guaranteed and it's not the first or the last time something like this will happen. However , to me it looks like you and others are trying to dramatize this issue to an unnecessary degree.

You're saying AMD tried to manipulate the media coverage , to me it looks like they simply failed to to get their products on the market the way they wanted and until there's more information on this matter , I feel like your claim that they tried to "manipulate" reviewers is outlandish and not based on anything concrete.
its not about consistency...

Performamce doesnt change, of course. However the value and buying decisions are also based off price. The card looks a lot better $100 cheaper, im sure you agree. Conclusions in reviews/perception of the card as a whole would have been different had we known what the actual price is.

They failed to get their products on the market the way they wanted??? Not sure i understand. Vya, they gave an price. They said nothing about it being on sale or limited quantities. Then, they came back, after the reviews and said it was a sale price and gave a higher price. Im not trying to make it dramatic. Intentional or not, it changed initial review outcomes in their favor. The card looks good price/performance wise... but with the price upped, that changes considerably with a what, a 25% increase?
Posted on Reply
#92
bug
Vya DomusThe problem I have is with people turning a blind eye to other shit that companies do , which is what you're doing right now.

And it was you who asked me to tell you what these other companies have done , and you're saying that's not what we're talking about now ?

Nah mate, we are talking about shady practices and AMD is small fish in that regard compared to Intel/Nvidia. And it's not me , commissions around the world came to that conclusion.

This situation is speculative at best , I can see that AMD screwed up big time and that's about it.

Whether they used shady tactics or not , I'll let respective authorities determine that.

Screw up =/= shady tactic
Nobody's turning a blind eye on anything, but there are those of us who like to stay on topic. And the topic is AMD's statement which danced around a straight answer.
If (and this still a big if) AMD really misled reviewers with initial pricing, that's a trend I don't want to see going forward. And I'll speak against it here, in this thread.
Posted on Reply
#93
Vya Domus
EarthDogits not about consistency...
They said nothing about it being on sale or limited quantities. Then, they came back, after the reviews and said it was a sale price and gave a higher price. Im not trying to make it dramatic. Intentional or not, it changed initial review outcomes in their favor. The card looks good price/performance wise... but with the price upped, that changes considerably with a what, a 25% increase?
You say you're bothered because it changed the outcome of reviews but at the same time you say this is not about consistency ? Then what is it about ? I am yet to see an official statement from AMD where they say that was a sale price that's never to be seen again , most of the claims/rumors come form retailers and I'm sorry for not trusting them as much as you do. You are again , in my opinion, basing your conclusion that AMD lied on speculation and FUD.
EarthDogThey failed to get their products on the market the way they wanted??? Not sure i understand.
Yes , that's what I think has happened , they thought they'll be able to sell their cards at those fixed prices and it turned out the retailers couldn't get on the same page as them. Hence a huge disconnect between them and what the retailers are doing.
Posted on Reply
#94
EarthDog
We all have our theories I guess...

Of course you want consistency, but that really doesnt have anything to do with it. This is just seemingly dishonest. We were given a price for a limited quanitity of cards and were never told any part of that up front. That is a problem.

This goes away if amd can CONSISTENTLY stock the 399 part...
Posted on Reply
#95
Vya Domus
Yes , we have just theories that's the point. To me it looks like a PR disaster , AMD is known for these. But I suggest we should wait a little longer and see what this was truly all about instead of throwing pretty harsh accusations right and left.
Posted on Reply
#96
EarthDog
Im really not sure if there is a good explanation for this pricing delivery method...pr disaster is putting it mildly. Bait and switch seems closer to reality... particularly since they said the delays in release were to get stock... and they dont have any on their "399" part...
Posted on Reply
#97
Vya Domus
I think it's AMD's/RTG's incompetence at work here.

I really do not believe they actually had malicious intentions with this , they are simply not in the position to pull that off , they have little market share with a handful of people as their fan base , they essentially have no safety net if word gets out they are trying to scam people.
Posted on Reply
#98
EarthDog
They knew exactly how it was going down... they told us and retailers....and then the update. They knew how much stock they had and pricing.

Not being told was a kick to the nuts. :(

I dont know... im dizzy...talked myself in circles. :)
Posted on Reply
#99
bug
EarthDogI dont know... im dizzy...talked myself in circles. :)
Yes, but what an impact our little quarrel had on AMD. We showed them. Oh, wait...
Posted on Reply
#100
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Vega is why I left PC gaming and moved on to a console.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 19th, 2024 05:05 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts